D&D General Playing to "Win" - The DM's Dilemma

[ezo]

Every DM has their own perspective on this question: do you play the monsters to win?

The thread about how often a PC death "should occur" has had myself thinking on this for a while now. I know, as DM, I can throw whatever I want at the PCs, and while I don't think success should be guaranteed to the players, I do feel the point is generally to make certain they have a fighting chance--perhaps even a fair one on occasion.

But how cunning and resourceful should their opponents be? What lengths should they be willing to go to defeat the characters? (dependent on their personality, alignment, behavior, morals, etc. of course)

How much foreshadowing should the DM feel necessary to warn the players, "Hey, this is going to be a tough fight, perhaps a TPK, so I'm giving you hints of a warning here..."?

While "not fun" for the player in question, one tactic is using magic or terrain to isolate one PC from the party; either to deal with that character or remove them from the battle while the other PCs are dealt with. This typically greatly increases the monster's chances of defeating the party (the "win").

Another strategy is using a familiar or similar creature or magic to spy on the PCs to observe their strategies, strengths, and weaknesses. This allows your monster to gauge which PC is the greatest threat and in what fashion, so they can counter the PCs as well as possible.

When the adversaries are multiple casters, such as a Hag Coven, this creates situtations which some players might feel are "unfair" and certainly "un-fun".

For myself as a player, since I often DM, this has never been an issue for me. And while I feel a primary goal of the game obviously is for everyone to have fun, I sometimes find myself at odds because what is fun for myself as DM is a believable world which challenges the PCs, not a game where the players just get to enjoy themselves and "win" all the time.

The last thing I enjoy and very rarely ever do is bail the players out of the situation. I try to give them warning, the chance to learn what they can instead of just charging blindly ahead, retreat (to a point---sometimes you are just in too deep!) and regroup, etc. but if they fail to take advantage or think of such things for themselves, I often feel like they have no one to blame but themselves.

I know the battle looming ahead for my party looks bleak for them from my point of view. While well-equipped and working well as a team, I see the potential for a TPK, particularly if I separate the PCs from one another and deal with them as smaller units instead of a whole group.

Weeks ago, I posted about the dragon encounter the PCs faced. Even though only 7th level at the time, the managed to "fend off" an Adult Black Dragon (CR 14), at the loss of a party member. Through some luck and planning, they managed to avoid the second encounter as the dragon hunted for them after resting. So, perhaps this encounter will go better for the players than I am imagining. We'll see.

Regardless, I am not really looking for "answers" or anything, other that what you might care to share from your own persepectives or opinions.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Do I play the monsters to win? Not really. I know they're going to lose, at least under standard D&D assumptions, the vast majority of the time.

Do I sometimes roll really well, and/or the players roll really poorly, and the monsters do win? Yes.
Do we let that outcome stand if it's a TPK? Sometimes! Depends on the tone of the game and the situation at hand.

Do I play certain monsters more ruthlessly and intelligently than others? Yes.

Do I optimize my monsters carefully? Oh heck no. I'm way too Lazy DM for that. If I want to up the challenge I'll use more monsters, or a simple buff to the monsters' damage, or dangerous terrain, or something. I'm way too lazy to optimize an individual monster with the same care I would use on my own PC.

 

[Reynard]

Every DM has their own perspective on this question: do you play the monsters to win?

Yes, almost always (with the caveat that monsters and villains should also act within the bounds of their motivations and natures/personalities).

When the dice start rolling, the bad guys want to win and I play them as such.

 

[FrogReaver]

There’s not particularly good mechanics against a random pc being focused fired.

As such the DM can outright kill just about any pc he wants whenever he wants.

 

[J.Quondam]

This is the sort of thing that gets established in session zero, imo, before the campaign begins. Personally I can go either way as a GM, but the players always know in advance how things are being run.

 

[Reynard]

There’s not particularly good mechanics against a random pc being focused fired.

Sound tactics by the players.

 

[payn]

I've shifted over the years from an old school skill play focus. Then, I played to win for sure and the focus of the game was to be smart and never enter a fight (if possible) you cant win. Now, im more about making fights interesting, or not having them at all. It might be interesting becasue its a very dangerous foe, or it could be environmental aspects that spice up the encounter. I try to make it more narratively interesting based on whats happening in game setting and plot. So, less dungeons stocked with rando enemies and more encoutners that both make sense to happen, and have interesting execution to them.

Since ive moved into such a narrative focus in my games, I feel like I neglect the combat pillar at times. Though, I am often complimented for my games being interesting in ways a lot of games (in their experience) are not.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sound tactics by the players.

Thread is about NPC tactics vs PCs though?

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me it's always about the story of the fight (or series of fights). How interesting is it? Is it not repetitious? Does everyone experience new things or curious things or wild things or scary things or fun things in it? If the throughline of the fight is interesting for the players (and to a lesser extent me)... then how easy or hard the fight is doesn't really matter. Other than changing up difficulties as we go along just for change of pace.

I don't need to purposefully "play to win" if the story of the fight works out just fine and is a lot of fun regardless of how I play it. For me, I just put the PCs into a unique situation and see how they react to it. And how they react to it says a lot more about what the results should be than any work on my part to push the agenda of a result.

 

[Stormonu]

I try to play the monster according to its nature. I don't see the game as a pitting of wits against the players, but as an impromptu play where scenes are set up, but the players have control where it goes from there. I've been through previous games of onemanupship and rocket tag and I'm past getting into an arms race with players. It's much less demanding to run a casual game than a cutthroat one where everybody and everything has to be optimized to the max.

So things such as:

Orcs and goblins might rush into battle against overwhelming odds without a proper plan, and possibly retreat as quickly if things don't go as they expected.

A wizard knows his spells and has a pretty good idea what is effective where and when, but doesn't have specific knowledge of the character's capabilities unless they have been using scrying or similar magics. They're smart enough to set up ambushes if given time or to parley instead of immediately attacking if that meets their goals.

A Red Dragon might have layered defenses and centuries worth of combat experience to use against the party. Its keen senses and hidden observations can tell it a lot about the party even before they first spot it, and it will maximize any damage it can cause (and minimize any it suffers in return) and seek the upper hand in any sort of conversation, expecting its words to be heeded without question.

As for "dangerous foes", before any campaign starts I warn the players that there WILL be encounters over their head and avoiding, de-escalating or running away are valid tactics. In game, I try to telegraph any such encounters so that attentive players can avert disaster. But if the players ignore or push their luck - its on them. I'm not going to pull my punches or send in the cavalry to rescue them.